Xeon D-2843NT vs Opteron 6348
Primary details
Comparing Opteron 6348 and Xeon D-2843NT processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1226 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 4.07 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Abu Dhabi (2012) | no data |
| Release date | 5 November 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Opteron 6348 and Xeon D-2843NT basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 576 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 12 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (per die) | 15 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | no data |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 6348 and Xeon D-2843NT compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 4 | no data |
| Socket | G34 | FCBGA2579 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 6348 and Xeon D-2843NT. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| QuickAssist | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Opteron 6348 and Xeon D-2843NT technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Opteron 6348 and Xeon D-2843NT are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 6348 and Xeon D-2843NT. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 1 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Opteron 6348 and Xeon D-2843NT.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 32 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 24 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 4 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 5 November 2012 | 1 October 2023 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 10 |
| Threads | 12 | 20 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 80 Watt |
Opteron 6348 has 20% more physical cores.
Xeon D-2843NT, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, 66.7% more threads, and 43.8% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Opteron 6348 and Xeon D-2843NT. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 6348 and Xeon D-2843NT, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
